Menu
Recruiting NCT07726030

Effects of Rotator Cuff Drills Versus Progressive Resistance Exercises on Chronic Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy

No phase Interventional Rotator Cuff Tendinosis

For patients and families

In plain language

An automatic summary of structured registry data. It is an orientation aid, not a substitute for the official protocol or a physician assessment.

What is being studied
The protocol lists: Rotator cuff Drills, Progressive resistance exercises.
Who it may be relevant to
Registry conditions: Rotator Cuff Tendinosis. Basic parameters: 17 years — 35 years · Male.
What needs checking
Age, condition and sex are only basic indicators. Prior treatment, laboratory values and other mandatory requirements appear in the eligibility criteria below.
Where it takes place
Pakistan
Next step
Save the trial, show it to the treating physician, and confirm current recruitment with the study center. Costs, documents and travel →
Official title

Effects of Rotator Cuff Drills Versus Progressive Resistance Exercises on Pain, Stability and Functional Performance Among Overhead Athletes With Chronic Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy

Overview

A single-blinded randomized clinical trial was conducted with 30 male overhead athletes (17-35 years) recruited from cricket clubs and sports complexes in Faisalabad. Participants were randomized into Group A (rotator cuff drills: plyometric medicine ball throws, wall dribbles) or Group B (PREs: resistance band exercises with progressive loading). Both groups underwent 12-week interventions (3 sessions/week) following the FIIT principle (Frequency, Intensity, Time, Type), preceded by a standardized 20-minute warm-up. Outcomes were assessed using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), Closed Kinetic Chain Upper Extremity Stability Test (CKCUEST), and Upper Limb Rotation Test (ULRT) at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks. Data were analyzed using SPSS v24, with statistical significance set at \*p\* ≤ 0.05. Descriptive statistics (mean, SD) summarized continuous variables, while frequencies/percentages described categorical data. Normality was confirmed via Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Between-group differences were analyzed using independent \*t\*-tests, and within-group changes via paired \*t\*-tests. The study's rigorous blinding and standardized protocols minimized bias, ensuring robust comparisons between interventions.

Detailed description

Rotator cuff tendinopathy is a prevalent condition among overhead athletes, significantly impairing performance and function. While both rotator cuff drills and progressive resistance exercises (PREs) are commonly used in rehabilitation, there remains a lack of comparative evidence on their effectiveness, particularly in sport-specific contexts.

Current literature highlights gaps in optimal exercise progression, long-term outcomes, and objective performance metrics for overhead athletes. This study aims to compare these two interventions to determine which approach better improves pain, stability, and functional performance in athletes with chronic rotator cuff tendinopathy, addressing a critical need for evidence-based rehabilitation protocols in sports medicine. A single-blinded randomized clinical trial was conducted with 30 male overhead athletes (17-35 years) recruited from cricket clubs and sports complexes in Faisalabad. Participants were randomized into Group A (rotator cuff drills: plyometric medicine ball throws, wall dribbles) or Group B (PREs: resistance band exercises with progressive loading). Both groups underwent 12-week interventions (3 sessions/week) following the FIIT principle (Frequency, Intensity, Time, Type), preceded by a standardized 20-minute warm-up. Outcomes were assessed using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), Closed Kinetic Chain Upper Extremity Stability Test (CKCUEST), and Upper Limb Rotation Test (ULRT) at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks. Data were analyzed using SPSS v24, with statistical significance set at \*p\* ≤ 0.05. Descriptive statistics (mean, SD) summarized continuous variables, while frequencies/percentages described categorical data. Normality was confirmed via Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Between-group differences were analyzed using independent \*t\*-tests, and within-group changes via paired \*t\*-tests. The study's rigorous blinding and standardized protocols minimized bias, ensuring robust comparisons between interventions.

Interventions

  • Other Rotator cuff Drills
    (rotator cuff drills: plyometric medicine ball throws, wall dribbles)
  • Other Progressive resistance exercises
    PREs: resistance band exercises with progressive loading). Both groups underwent 12-week interventions (3 sessions/week) following the FIIT principle (Frequency, Intensity, Time, Type), preceded by a standardized 20-minute warm-up.

Primary outcome measures

  • Pain through NPRS [Time frame: Pre and 6 week post interventional]
  • stability through CKCUEST [Time frame: Pre and 6 week post interventional]
  • functional performance through ULRT [Time frame: Pre and 6 week post interventional]

Eligibility criteria

Inclusion criteria

  • Professional male overhead athletes aged 17-35 years
  • Male overhead athletes playing competitive sports like volleyball, tennis, baseball, cricket, swimming, badminton, and basketball for at least 6 hours a week. Painful arc of movement during flexion or abduction.
  • Positive Neer's or Kennedy-Hawkins test

Exclusion criteria

  • Had a previous shoulder surgery.
  • Trauma history. Corticosteroid injection within the previous 6 weeks
  • Other injuries rather than Rotator cuff tendinopathy

Criteria are shown verbatim from the registry (in English). Final eligibility is always assessed by the study center.

Healthy volunteers: No

Study design

Allocation
Randomized
Model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single blind
Primary purpose
Treatment

Study locations

Pakistan · 1 center
  • Jawad club, Alfatah sports complex — Faisalābad

Identifiers

NCT: NCT07726030 · REC/RCR & AHS/25/0421

Primary sources (government registries)

View this study on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗